I received both your letters and was very glad to see from them that the
imaginary “misunderstandings” are really just smoke, as I
already said in writing to Cook (I wrote that I was convinced of this).

You complain of our “agents”. I want to talk this over with
you—it is such a painful subject with me too, “Agents have been
recruited too lightly.” I know it, I know it only too well, I never forget
it, but that is just the tragedy of our situation (believe me, tragedy is none
too strong a word!)—that we are obliged to act in this way, that
we are powerless to overcome the Jack of management prevailing in our
affairs. I am well aware that your words contained no reproach to us. But try to
put yourself in our place and adopt such an attitude as to make you say
not “your agents” but “our agents”. You could,
and in my opinion should, adopt such an attitude—and only then will
all possibility of misunderstandings have been removed once for
all. Substitute the first person for the second, keep an eye yourself on
“our” agents, help to search for, change and replace them, and then you
will speak not of our agents being “unpleasant” (such language is
bound to be misunderstood:
it is regarded as an expression of estrangement, it is regard ed as such in
general and by the members of our editorial collegium who have not had an
opportunity of clearing up the question with you), but of the shortcomings of
our common cause. The mass of these shortcomings weighs more and more
heavily upon my mind as time goes on. The time is now fast approaching (I feel
it) when tho question will face us squarely: either Russia will appoint its
people, put forward people who will come to our aid and set matters right,
or.... And although I know and see that such people are being put forward and
that their number is growing, this is taking place so slowly and with such
interruptions, and the “creaking” of the machinery is so
nerve-racking, that ... sometimes it becomes extremely
painful.

“Agents have been recruited too lightly.” Yes, but after all we
don’t make the “human material”, we take and have to take
what we are given. We couldn’t live without
it. A man is going to Russia—“I want to work for
Iskra,” he says. He is an honest man, devoted to the cause. Well, he
goes, of course, and passes for an “agent”, although none
of us had ever handed out such a title. And what means have we for checking
“agents”, guiding them or appointing them to other places? More
often than not we can’t even get letters, and in nine cases out of
ten (I speak from experience) all our plans in regard to the future activity of the “agent” end in smoke as soon as the frontier is
crossed, and the agent muddles along just anyhow. Believe me, I am
literally losing all faith in routes, plans, etc., made here, because I know
beforehand that nothing will come of it all. We “have
to” make frantic efforts doing (for lack of suitable people)
other people’s jobs. In order to appoint agents, to look after them, to
answer for them, to unite and guide them in practice—it
is necessary to be everywhere, to rush about, to see all of them on the job, at
work. This requires a team of practical organisers and leaders, but we
haven’t got any; at least, very, very few to speak of.... That’s the
whole trouble. Looking at our practical mismanagement is often so infuriating
that it robs one of the capacity for work; the only consolation
is that it must be a vital cause if it is
growing—and obviously it
is—despite all this chaos. That means when the ferment
is over we shall have good wine.

Now do you understand why the mere remark by an Iskrist: “those agents of
’yours’ are rather lightweight” can almost drive us to distraction? Try
taking the place of these “lightweights” yourselves instead, we feel
like saying. We keep repeating and even writing in our booklets that the whole
trouble is that “there are plenty of people
and there are no people”, yet we have this lack of people thrust
under our nose. There is only one way out, only one solution that is most
imperatively necessary, urgent in the most literal, unexaggerated sense of
the word—for time will not wait and our enemies are growing too, including
Osvobozhdeniye[3]and the Socialist-Revolutionaries and all
the various new Social-Democratic groups, beginning with the lightheads of
Zhizn and ending with the
Borbist[4] intriguers. The
solution is for the Iskrists in Russia to get together at last, find the
people and take the management of “Iskra” into their own
hands, for truly it is said: our land is great and abundant, but disorder
reigns in it. People must be found, for there are people, but
they must be guard ed more carefully than the apple of one’s eye, not
merely in the direct sense of guarding from the police, but guarded for this
urgent matter, without allowing them to be divert ed by other, generally useful
but untimely tasks. When, owing to a complete lack of people, we are
compelled to seize on the most “lightweight”, it is not
surprising that we cannot stand by calmly watching others postponing our work
“for later on”.

If all the present, available supporters of Iskra were at
once, without delaying, to take up the management of
Iskra, its independent equipment with the means for sending
across the frontier, its distribution, and supply of material, etc., we
would have already an actual Central Committee, a C.C. disposing de
facto of “agents” (for the C.C. and not the editorial board
should dispose of the agents) and managing all practical matters.

It is being said: if there are no people, where is the C.C. to get them? But we
do find the people, even if only light weights. One heavyweight among ten
lightweights does not take the lead, but the experience will not have been
wasted. People learn in the course of the work: some drop out, others replace
them, and once things have been set going it is ten times easier for
the others to take up this work which has been running smoothly. If we
were to set up a C.C. today (not formally), tomorrow it would be formal and
would already be drawing capable people from every local organisation
ten times more energetically than now. And it is only this “drawing from
the local organisations”
that can create a state of affairs under which these local organisations would
be properly served.

That is why I am so jealous, so devilishly jealous about
Semyon
Semyonich[5] and why the glance (the mere glance) at
an “outsider” worries me. I can’t adopt any other attitude,
for unless the Iskrists say: this is my business,
unless they say it out loud, unless they come to grips with the job,
tackle it tooth and nail, unless they begin to upbraid the others for lack of
tenacity [you once said to me: upbraid the Iskrists! And I replied: it is not I
but you should do so, for only one who takes part practically in the
work itself and who knows it thoroughly has the right to do so]—
unless the Iskrists do this, it means that they want to leave us
“only with lightweights”, and that would be the beginning of the
end.

It is time to conclude. I am extremely desirous that you and Cook should have as
concrete an idea as possible of our position, understand it and say not you, but
we. In any case, it is essential that Cook should
write to us frequently, and directly, and keep us in closer
touch with Semyon Semyonich and the latter with us.

As to your visit here, if you still have to be in Zurich, that is a different
matter. Why are you feeling bad? Is your health quite all right? Should you not
take a little rest?

Write me your opinion of Zernova and Sanin. I have heard something about the
latter from various persons and got the impression that he is no worker, that he
is much too
“wild”.[1]
Is it true that Zernova is a bad person, that is,
not merely in the sense of being fond of “adventure” (that, in
itself, is not so bad) but as being unreliable?

Notes

[2]Noskov, Vladimir Alexandrovich (1878-1913)—a
Social-Democrat. In the late nineties joined the St. Petersburg League of
Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class. In April 1902 attended
the Zurich meeting of the Iskra editorial board where the
Party’s draft programme was discussed. In 1902-03 organised the
transportation of illegal Social-Democratic literature to Russia and took
part in organising the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. At the Second
Congress joined the Bolsheviks and was elected to the Central Committee;
after the Congress adopted a conciliatory attitude towards the Mensheviks;
came out against the convocation of the Third Congress. p. 110

[3]Osvobozhdeniye (Emancipation)—a fortnightly, published
abroad from June 18 (July 1), 1902 to October 5 (18), 1905, edited by
P. B. Struve. The journal was the organ of the Russian liberal bourgeoisie
and expounded the ideas of moderate-monarchist
liberalism. In 1903 the Osvobozhdeniye League formed around the
journal (officially it came into existence in January 1904). The League
existed up till October 1905. p. 112

[4]Lenin here refers to the members of the Borba group (see Note
93). p. 112

[5]Semyon Semyonovich—a code name for the Northern League of
the R.S.D.L.P. (or the Northern Labour League), which arose in 1900-01. The
League united the Social-Democratic organisations of the Vladimir,
Yaroslavl and Kostroma gubernias. From the outset the Northern League was
linked with Iskra and supported the latter’s political line
and plan of organisation.

After the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L P. the Northern Labour League was
reconstituted as the Northern Committee of the R.S.D.L.P., the local
committees becoming groups of the Northern Committee. At the conference of
Northern organisations of the R.S.D.L.P. held in Kostroma in July 1905 the
Northern Committee was liquidated and separate committees were formed in
Ivanovo-Voznesensk, Yaroslavl and Kostroma. p. 113